En français:
VIII session du dialogue entre l’Église orthodoxe et le groupe du Parti populaire européen (démocrates chrétiens) et des Démocrates européensLe colloque sur les fondements spirituels et éthiques du développement démographique en RussieLa visite de l’archevêque Jérémie de Wroclaw à la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennesLa visite du métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad en HongrieNouvelles des Églises orthodoxes en bref
In English:
Official Visit of Metropolitan Kirill to Hungary
Hungarian Court for the Second Time Finds the Claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest Unfounded
Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad: Responses to the Questions from Participants in the Internet-Conference Held by the “Lutheranism in Russia” Website
Auf Deutsch:
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev: Das Sakrament der Eucharistie in der Orthodoxen Kirche
VIII session du dialogue entre l’Église orthodoxe et le groupe du Parti populaire européen (démocrates chrétiens) et des Démocrates européens
La VIIIe session du dialogue entre l’Église orthodoxe et le groupe du Parti populaire européen (démocrates chrétiens) et des Démocrates européens a eu lieu le 21 octobre à Thessalonique (en Grèce). Le thème de cette rencontre était «La construction de l’Europe par la réconciliation et la collaboration». L’attention particulière de cette session du dialogue inauguré en 1995 a été accordée à la situation dans les Balkans. Le Patriarcat de Moscou a été représenté à cette rencontre par l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche, représentant de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennes, et le prêtre Antony Ilin, secrétaire de la Représentation.
Le programme de la rencontre comprenait les conférences des premiers ministres de la Grèce, de Serbie et Monténégro, de la Croatie, du métropolite Emmanuel de France, représentant du Patriarcat de Constantinople auprès de l’Union européenne, de M. V. Martens, président du Parti populaire européen et de son vice-président, M. V. van Velzen.
Dans son discours le premier ministre grec, K. Karamanlis, a souligné l’importance du dialogue ouvert et systématique entre les structures politiques européennes et les Églises orthodoxes, ce qui correspond à l’article 51 du projet de la Constitution européenne. En parlant des valeurs communes à toute l’Europe, Karamanlis a notamment affirmé: «Nous croyons qu’indépendamment de l’appartenance religieuse le plus important est de partager les valeurs universelles sur lesquelles l’Europe est édifiée. Nous croyons que dans l’Europe en élargissement permanent la richesse des traditions culturelles et religieuses est un grand avantage et un trésor extrêmement précieux».
Le premier ministre serbe a insisté sur l’importance du facteur religieux dans la vie politique et sociale et a parlé de la situation dans son pays où 95 pour cent de la population partagent des convictions religieuses. Seulement 4 pour cent de Serbes n’ont pas décidé de leur appartenance religieuse et à peine un demi pour cent de la population se déclare athée.
Au cours de la discussion l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche a présenté la position de l’Église orthodoxe russe sur la question des valeurs de l’Europe unie. «Nous entendons en permanence parler des valeurs universelles, a affirmé Mgr Hilarion, mais il est très important de reconnaître qu’en plus des valeurs libérales, fondées sur le principe de la liberté de l’homme, il existe des valeurs religieuses dont découle le principe de la responsabilité éthique de l’homme. Le système de valeurs libéral qui domine aujourd’hui en Europe est anthropocentrique, car il proclame l’homme et sa liberté comme la mesure en toutes choses. Le système religieux de valeurs est en revanche théocentrique, car il considère Dieu et ses préceptes comme le critère absolu de vérité. Il est important que l’Europe en édification prévoit la place nécessaire non seulement aux valeurs libérales et humanistes, mais également aux valeurs religieuses. Il est indispensable de garder l’équilibre entre les deux systèmes de valeurs, autrement nous risquons de construire une Europe dans laquelle les Églises traditionnelles, notamment catholique et orthodoxe se sentiront marginalisées».
En parlant de la situation religieuse au Kosovo, l’évêque Hilarion a affirmé: «J’espère que notre déclaration commune trouvera les termes convenables pour condamner les crimes qui sont commis de nos jours contre la population serbe et les églises orthodoxes à Kosovo et exhorter les habitants de cette région à la paix et à la compréhension mutuelle».
Le colloque sur les fondements spirituels et éthiques du développement démographique en Russie
Du 18 au 19 octobre l’Église orthodoxe russe a organisé dans les locaux de la cathédrale du Christ Sauveur un forum consacré aux problèmes démographiques de la Russie. Le colloque, inauguré par le patriarche Alexis, s’est présenté comme la suite des réflexions entreprises par le concile épiscopal de cette année. Le ministre de la santé, des députés et des gouverneurs ont participé dans le colloque ensemble avec les représentants religieux.
Depuis une quinzaine d’années le taux de natalité a diminué en Russie de deux fois devenant un des plus bas en Europe. Par conséquent, le nombre de Russes diminue chaque année de 700 000 à 1 million de personnes. L’important niveau de mortalité et la migration intérieure sont les causes du dépeuplement de certaines régions, comme la Sibérie et l’Extrême Orient. Selon les prévisions du Comité des statistiques d’État la population russe qui compte aujourd’hui 148 millions, sera réduite à 138 millions en 2011, et à 75-100 millions en 2050. La Russie occupe également une des premières places en Europe par le nombre d’avortements et de divorces.
Le forum s’est donné pour objectif de sensibiliser les autorités et la société russes au problème démographique et de les inciter à chercher des solutions à cette grave crise. Comme l’a affirmé le patriarche Alexis, la question qui se pose aujourd’hui aux Russes est de savoir si notre pays existera ou n’existera plus demain. Les principales causes de cette disparition progressive du peuple russe est, selon le patriarche, l’absence de respect à l’égard de la vie, manifestée par la croissance du nombre d’avortements, la pauvreté, le culte du confort, la dévaluation du mariage, le taux considérable de mortalité des jeunes due à la drogue, aux suicides, aux accidents.
La visite de l’archevêque Jérémie de Wroclaw à la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennes
Du 15 au 17 octobre l’archevêque Jérémie de Wroclaw (Église orthodoxe de Pologne) a été l’hôte de la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennes. Mgr Jérémie a inauguré le cycle des conférences sur la place de l’Orthodoxie dans le christianisme et la société européenne que la Représentation de l’Église orthodoxe russe organise désormais tous les mois. Le 15 octobre l’archevêque Jérémie a donné une conférence à la Représentation. Le 16 octobre il a célébré les vigiles dans l’église de la Représentation et le 17 octobre il y a présidé la divine liturgie. Après l’office, Mgr Jérémie a rencontré de nombreux représentants de la diaspora polonaise orthodoxe de Bruxelles et de Belgique.
Dans sa conférence, consacrée à la contribution de l’Orthodoxie à l’avenir de l’Europe l’archevêque Jérémie a souligné l’importance historique de l’Orthodoxie dans la formation de la culture européenne: «Ceux qui affirment que les frontières de l’Union européenne coïncident avec celles des Églises occidentales, catholiques et protestantes, ont tort». L’Europe orientale, principalement orthodoxe, a connu des civilisations exceptionnelles (byzantine, russe, bulgare) qui ont eu beaucoup à souffrir des envahisseurs extérieurs. Ces invasions ont considérablement diminué leur rayonnement et ont provoqué la chute de certaines». Ce facteur, selon l’archevêque Jérémie, n’est pas suffisamment pris en compte par ceux qui critiquent le caractère arriéré de certains pays de l’Europe de l’Est.
Selon Mgr Jérémie, l’Orthodoxie a une grande expérience de l’existence dans des structures impériales, voire supranationales. De ce fait, l’étude de son histoire peut réellement contribuer à la réflexion sur les modalités de l’exercice de l’autorité supranationale en Europe. En effet, l’organisation fédérale de l’Église orthodoxe, communion de plusieurs Églises locales autocéphales rappelle à bien des égards l’idéal de l’Union européenne: «L’évêque, en tant que le coeur de la vie d’un diocèse, conçu comme une assemblée eucharistique locale, et le concile, en tant qu’autorité suprême de l’Église, convergent avec la signification des régions, d’une part, et le rôle du Parlement, d’autre part dans l’Union européenne».
En conclusion l’archevêque Jérémie a rappelé le caractère primordial de la foi en la Trinité pour tout chrétien. C’est en elle que le chrétien trouve le remède contre la division néfaste du monde. Cette foi ne doit pas être purement intellectuelle et abstraite, mais doit transfigurer toute la vie du fidèle, à l’exemple de saint Serge de Radonezh.
Le 11 ovembre nous recevrons l’archevêque Christophore de Prague qui parlera des racines et de la situation actuelle de l’Orthodoxie en Tchéquie.
La visite du métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad en Hongrie
Du 16 au 19 octobre le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad, président du Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou s’est rendu en Hongrie sur l’invitation de Madame Katalin Sili, présidente du Parlement hongrois.
Le métropolite Kirill a rencontré le clergé du diocèse orthodoxe de Hongrie qui se trouve dans la juridiction du Patriarcat de Moscou et est actuellement présidé par l’évêque Hilarion (Alfeyev) de Vienne et d’Autriche, représentant de l’Église orthodoxe russe près les Institutions européennes. Le métropolite a souligné que le clergé orthodoxe de Hongrie a une double tâche: celle de promouvoir l’Orthodoxie hongroise locale et de s’occuper des fidèles de langue russe demeurant dans le pays.
Le même jour Mgr Kirill a célébré les vigiles dans l’église S. Serge de Budapest. Le lendemain, le 17 octobre, il a présidé la divine liturgie dans la cathédrale de la Dormition. Dans l’homélie prononcée à la fin de l’office le métropolite Kirill a noté les changements positifs survenus dans la vie du diocèse ces dernières années: «Aujourd’hui les fidèles et le clergé de votre diocèse sont devenus beaucoup plus unis et plus solidaires. Et cela est très important, parce que votre communauté est multiethnique et multiculturelle. Là où il existe des différences de langue, de foi, de culture, des efforts supplémentaires sont nécessaires pour prévenir les tentations de division et préserver l’unité de la communauté chrétienne». Le métropolite Kirill a remercié l’évêque Hilarion de son travail pastoral dans le diocèse de Hongrie.
Le 18 octobre le métropolite Kirill a été reçu par le vice premier ministre de la République de Hongrie, ainsi que par d’autres hommes politiques du pays. Le soir du même jour il a rendu visite au cardinal Peter Erdö, archevêque de Budapest. Le 19 octobre le métropolite a rencontré le président de Hongrie et a déjeuné avec la présidente du Parlement de la République hongroise.
Dans la conférence de presse par laquelle le métropolite Kirill a conclu son séjour en Hongrie, il a exprimé sa satisfaction pour la situation de la nombreuse diaspora russe dans le pays et l’issue du procès au sujet de la cathédrale orthodoxe de Budapest (qui a confirmé la légitimité de son appartenance au Patriarcat de Moscou) et a constaté l’absence de toute sorte de discrimination.
Nouvelles des Églises orthodoxes en bref
Intronisation du nouveau patriarche d’Alexandrie
Le 24 octobre le nouveau patriarche Théodore d’Alexandrie et de toute l’Afrique a été intronisé dans sa cathédrale de l’Annonciation d’Alexandrie en présence des hiérarques de son Patriarcat et des représentants des Églises orthodoxes autocéphales. Le patriarche copte d’Alexandrie, Shenouda III, et le président de la Grèce ont également assisté à la cérémonie. La délégation de l’Église orthodoxe russe était dirigée par le métropolite Valentin d’Orenbourg.
Conférence «Pèlerinage orthodoxe: tradition et actualité»
Le 27 octobre le Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou a organisé dans le Centre des pèlerinages une conférence sur les traditions et l’état actuel du pèlerinage dans l’Orthodoxie russe. Plus de 234 personnes (des évêques, des représentants de 30 diocèses russes, des supérieurs des monastères, des membres des commissions synodales) ont pris part à ce colloque. Dans son discours le métropolite Kirill, président du Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou, a noté qu’aujourd’hui l’Église orthodoxe russe possède 88 services pour l’organisation des pèlerinages, 47 hôtels pour les pèlerins et 25 maisons d’accueil. En 2004 plus de 50 mille Russes et 150 mille orthodoxes des pays de la CEI ont effectué des pèlerinages à l’étranger.
Le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk s’est rendu en France
Le 24 octobre le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad, président du Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou, a visité la ville de Bordeaux, où il était invité par la paroisse orthodoxe russe de Saint Séraphin. La communauté n’ayant pas encore sa propre église, le métropolite a célébré la liturgie dans l’église grecque, en concélébration avec l’archevêque Innocent de Chersonèse, évêque du Patriarcat de Moscou en France. Le même jour, Mgr Kirill a rencontré l’archevêque de Bordeaux, Mgr Jean-Pierre Ricard, président de la Conférence des évêques catholiques de France.
Le patriarche de Bulgarie fête ses 90 ans
Le 29 octobre le métropolite Maxim de Sofia, patriarche de Bulgarie, a célébré ses 90 ans, entouré des primats et des représentants des Églises orthodoxes autocéphales, dont le patriarche Bartholomé de Constantinople, l’archevêque Christodoulos d’Athènes, l’archevêque Anastase d’Albanie, le métropolite Savva de Pologne. L’Église orthodoxe russe y était représentée par le métropolite Vladimir de Saint-Pétersbourg.
Official Visit of Metropolitan Kirill to Hungary
From 16 to 19 October 2004 Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, paid an official visit to Hungary. The visit took place through an invitation from Katalin Szili, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Hungary.
Metropolitan Kirill was greeted at the Budapest airport by Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, administrator of the diocese of Hungary, as well as by V.L. Musatov, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Hungary.
On the same day Metropolitan Kirill met with the clergy of the diocese of Hungary. Addressing the clergy, Metropolitan Kirill mentioned that the acceptance of the Hungarian parishes into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate at the end of the 1940s and beginning of the 1950s had a providential character since the Hungarian Orthodox faithful received the right to hold their divine services in their native language and translate and publish liturgical texts.
Metropolitan Kirill informed the diocesan clergy of the decisions of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which exhorted the Patriarchate of Constantinople to give up its unfounded claims to the property of the Moscow Patriarchate in Hungary, including the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest. Expressing his satisfaction with the decision of the Arbitration Court of Budapest, which rejected the right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to filing a lawsuit, Metropolitan Kirill noted that this decision bears witness to the independence and impartiality of the Hungarian court, which based its conclusions exclusively on facts and documents.
Metropolitan Kirill also mentioned that the diocesan clergy is faced with a twofold task – to maintain and develop Hungarian Orthodoxy while not forgetting about the pastoral care for the many Russian-speaking believers living in Budapest and other cities in Hungary. Special discernment and pastoral responsibility are required of the diocese’s priests in accomplishing this difficult task.
An exchange of opinions concerning the present state and future of Hungarian Orthodoxy also took place. Archpriests Tibor Imrenyi, Laszlo Boleszka, Istvan Magyar and Ioann Kadar took part in the discussion.
On the same day Metropolitan Kirill and Bishop Hilarion, together with Archpriest Ioann Kadar, Priest Nikolai Kim and Deacon Kirill Tatarka, celebrated the all-night vigil in the Church of St. Sergius in Budapest.
On 17 October Metropolitan Kirill and Bishop Hilarion, together with Archpriests Feriz Berki, Istvan Magyar, Ioann Kadar, Priests Sergij Bilku, and Deacons Miklos Dadani and Kirill Tatarka, celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Dormition Cathedral of Budapest. After the Liturgy Bishop Hilarion warmly greeted Metropolitan Kirill.
In his response Metropolitan Kirill pointed out the special responsibility of the clergy and faithful of the diocese for the fate of Hungarian Orthodoxy. Recalling his previous visit to Hungary in 2001, Metropolitan Kirill noted many positive changes that took place in the diocese during the recent past. “Today both the clergy and faithful of our diocese have become more united, which is very important since our flock here is multinational and multicultural”, stressed the Metropolitan. “Wherever there are differences in faith, language, culture and character, a special spiritual vision and watchfulness are necessary to prevent temptations and maintain the unity of the Christian community. In this regard I would like to thank Bishop Hilarion for his archpastoral wisdom, love for people and openness, which foster unity among people and strengthen ties among all the Orthodox faithful in Hungary. I would also like to thank the diocesan clergy, especially Father Feriz, a veteran of our diocese and long-time head of the Hungarian Orthodox deanery, as well as all those who labour for the salvation of the faithful and the good of the one Orthodox Christian community of Hungary.”
Metropolitan Kirill also presented Bishop Hilarion with a memorial egkolpion in gratitude for his archpastoral service and care for the Orthodox faithful of Hungary, wishing him many good years of service to Christ’s Church.
After the service Metropolitan Kirill met with parishioners of the Dormition Cathedral in the Cathedral’s parish hall. He also met there with Pastor Tibor Görög, General Secretary of the Ecumenical Council of Churches of Hungary.
On the same day Metropolitan Kirill visited the Church of the Holy Martyr Alexandra in Üröm, built in 1803 by the ruler of Hungary Jozsef Habsburg on the burial place of his wife – Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna Romanova, daughter of the Russian Emperor Paul I. After viewing the church, Metropolitan Kirill, accompanied by Bishop Hilarion, Archpriest Ioann Kadar and Priest Nikolai Kim, as well as by the Mayor of Üröm G. Laboda, descended into the crypt, where a memorial service for the repose of the soul of the Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna took place. After the visit Metropolitan Kirill made an entry into the book of special guests.
On 18 October Metropolitan Kirill met with P. Kiss, Vice-Premier of the Government of the Republic of Hungary and Minister of the Chancery of the Prime Minister. Bishop Hilarion, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Hungary V.L. Musatov and the Secretary of State of the Republic of Hungary for Church Matters G. Kalman, also took part in the talk.
During the meeting Metropolitan Kirill informed the Vice-Premier of the Hungarian Government about the activities of the European Council of Religious Leaders, as well as the work of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European International Organizations, headed by Bishop Hilarion, whose mission is to foster the deepening of the dialogue between our Church and the European Union. Metropolitan Kirill remarked that the main theme of this dialogue is the necessity of harmonizing the liberal principle, based on the idea of personal freedom, with the principle of moral responsibility, taken from the spiritual and religious legacy of the European people. The Metropolitan stressed that the future of Europe depends on the outcome of this dialogue.
On the same day Metropolitan Kirill met with Deputy Chairman of the Committee for International Affairs M. Balla and committee advisor P. Feryes in the Parliament of the Hungarian Republic. Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria and Ambassador V.L. Musatov took part in the meeting, during which the subjects of bilateral Russian-Hungarian relations, inter-church and inter-religious dialogue and the role of the Churches in a united Europe were discussed.
The same questions were discussed at a meeting between Metropolitan Kirill and the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Church and Minority Affairs. L. Szafalvy, Chairman of the Committee, Deputy Chairmen L. Donat and T. Zuckman, Committee advisor I. Ars, Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria and A.G. Nerozin, advisor of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Hungary, participated in the meeting.
On the same day the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Hungary V.L. Musatov held a lunch in honour of Metropolitan Kirill. Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, Bishop Lukian of Buda (Serbian Orthodox Church), Bishop Sophrony of Gyula (Romanian Orthodox Church), Secretary of State for Church Affairs G. Kalman, Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs E. Boros and Deputy Mayor of the city of Üröm T. Vidkovic, were present at the lunch.
In the evening of the same day a meeting was held between Metropolitan Kirill and Cardinal Peter Erdö, Archbishop of Esztergom and Budapest and Primate of the Roman Catholic Church of Hungary. Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria and Bishop L. Kiss Rigo, Assistant of the Cardinal, also took part. During the meeting Metropolitan Kirill informed the Cardinal of the problems that exist between Orthodox and Catholics on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. Vladyka also stressed the Moscow Patriarchate’s readiness for a dialogue that would foster the solving of these problems and told him about the creation of a bilateral committee whose task would include the examining of all disputed questions.
The head of the Roman Catholic Church of Hungary then noted the high level of cooperation between his church structure and the Hungarian diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Cardinal spoke with pleasure about his participation on 11 September in the festivities of the translation of the remains of Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna to the place of their historic rest – the Russian Orthodox Church of the Holy Martyr Empress Alexandra in Üröm. The Archbishop expressed his hopes that positive accomplishments might be achieved at the inter-church level, necessary for the success of Christian witness in a united Europe.
On 19 October Metropolitan Kirill met with the President of the Republic of Hungary Ferenc Madl and the President of Parliament Katalin Szili. Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria took part in both meetings.
Hungarian Court for the Second Time Finds the Claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest Unfounded
On 13 October took place a hearing of the Arbitration Court of Budapest concerning the case of the ownership of the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest. The plaintiff was the Hungarian Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, represented by Metropolitan Michael (Staikos) of Austria, while the defendant was the Hungarian diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, represented by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria, temporary administrator of the diocese of Budapest and Hungary. Lawyers Jozsef Paraizs and Eleonora Kiss also took part on the side of the defendant. Also present in the courtroom were Archbishop Pavel of Ryazan and Kasimov, clergy of the Hungarian diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate and parishioners of the Dormition Cathedral.
The Arbitration Court, which is a court of second instance, examined the appeal submitted by the Hungarian Exarchate of the Constantinople Patriarchate after the Capital Court of Budapest, at its hearing on 17 May 2004, rejected its right to file a lawsuit, thus recognizing the claims to the Dormition Cathedral as unfounded. Having examined the documents submitted by both the plaintiff and defendant and heard the arguments from the lawyers on both sides, the Arbitration Court gave its verdict, according to which the decision of the Capital Court was left without changes.
As is well known, the Cathedral of the Dormition, built at the end of the 18th century by Greeks, Macedonian-Wallachians, Hungarians and people of other nationalities, was under the jurisdiction of the Serbian bishop of Buda from the moment of its founding until the middle of the 20th century. From 1945 members of the parish asked His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy I several times to accept the parish into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1949 the Hungarian deanery of the Moscow Patriarchate was formed, and in 1950 the Dormition Cathedral, along with several other Hungarian parishes, was finally taken into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 2000 the Hungarian deanery was made a diocese, with the Dormition Cathedral as the bishop’s see.
During the court procedures of the first instance the Hungarian Exarchate of the Constantinople Patriarchate, registered in Hungary only since 1995, attempted to prove that it was identical with the parish that owned the Dormition Cathedral until 1950. However, the plaintiff was unable to furnish any documents that could confirm these unfounded claims. On the contrary, both the documents and the testimony of witnesses undoubtedly proved that the lawful legal successor of the Dormition Cathedral parish is the parish of the Moscow Patriarchate occupying it now, and that the Constantinople Patriarchate never owned this building at all. After examining all submitted documents and testimony of witnesses, the Capital Court, and now the Arbitration Court, handed down a verdict that rejected the lawsuit of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The verdict of the Arbitration Court is binding from the moment of its signing.
The clergy and faithful of the Hungarian diocese viewed this judicial decision with satisfaction and thankfulness to God. It is significant that the verdict of the Arbitration Court was handed down just several days after the Bishop’s Council of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed the Patriarchate of Constantinople with a call to forego its groundless claims to the property of the Moscow Patriarchate in Hungary, including the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest.
Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad: Responses to the Questions from Participants in the Internet-Conference Held by the “Lutheranism in Russia” Website
Your Eminence, what is your assessment of the achievements made in the negotiations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland? What are the prospects for these relationships?
Theological dialogue with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland has continued for almost 35 years. During this time, we have discussed purely theological subjects, such as the Eucharist and the nature of the Church and the understanding of salvation and holiness, as well as themes dictated by the social tasks of a particular time. Among its indisputable achievements is the erasing of some prejudices and stereotypes in assessing each other, which a frank and scientifically grounded discussion has helped so much. Under the Soviet Union the dialogue was also of a great political importance. Thanks to contacts of the Russian Orthodox Church with religious organizations in other countries, the atheistic authorities had to reconcile themselves with the very existence of the Church. It can be stated directly that dialogues with Western Christians helped our Church to survive at that time.
In the late 80s of the last century when religious freedom came to our country the situation changed radically. Instead of helping us to restore normal church life in Russia, many Western Christian confessions, who had maintained friendly relations with our Church for decades, busied themselves with active proselytism. Such were, for instance, actions of the United Methodist Church in the USA. At the same time, it was with the Lutherans that our Church preserved strong and really partner relations - with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland and the Evangelical Church in Germany. We have continued theological talks with these Churches.
The next theological dialogue with the Finnish Lutherans will take place next September. Besides, our Churches have a program of scholarship exchange under which students from the Russian Orthodox Church studied in Helsinki and Turku, while Finnish theologians worked in St. Petersburg Theological Academy. In 2001 the first agreements on twin-parishes were signed between Russian Orthodox communities and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland.
What awaits us in the future? It seems to me that with time Christians will find more and more common tasks. Besides, at a time when countries and peoples in Europe and the world become ever more inter-dependent we should seek to solve together the problems that face us, using the experience we have accumulated. For instance, among serious challenges that come to face Christians are secularism, spiritual nihilism, betrayal of the gospel's ideals within certain Christian communities. I mean first of all introduction of the ordination of homosexuals and "blessing" given upon one-sex marriages. I repeat there are more and more common Christian tasks.
What is your assessment of the present situation in the World Council of Churches? Has the WCC introduced any changes in its work after quite a tough reaction of the Orthodox participants in the WCC to its style of work and mechanism of decision-making? Do Orthodox delegates participate nowadays in WCC prayer meetings?
In 2002, after the Special Commission for the Participation of the Orthodox in the WCC completed its work there was a hope that considerable changes would be made to the work of this international Christian organization. The discussion itself in the commission brought the positions of the Orthodox and the Protestant participants closer to each other in many ways, or at least helped them to understand the Orthodox point of view better. Now that about two years remain before the decisions of the Special Commission will be finally adopted by the next WCC Assembly, we can see some signs of positive development as draft amendments to the WCC Constitution and Rules have been already prepared. Thanks to these amendments most of the decisions will be adopted not by a simple majority of votes but by consensus. This is especially important when the point at issue is the doctrine or tradition of our Church and her ecclesiological self-consciousness. The criteria of membership in the Council also become stricter. If before it was sufficient to agree with the teaching on the Trinity and the Divine-Human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, now an applicant should also confess the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed. It is also positive that now one delegate will represent numerous small Protestant churches of the same orientation. This will reduce the excessive confessional misbalance in the Council when the Orthodox always was a minority in spite of the fact that they represent a great number of the faithful.
As far as common prayers are concerned, the Local Orthodox Churches have different attitude to this issue. At this stage, after the decisions made by the inter-Orthodox meeting in Thessalonki, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church do not participate actively in such prayers, but it does not mean they cannot attend meetings of non-Orthodox Christians at which prayer and sermon are said in forms acceptable to us. The Special Commission I have already mentioned has made an important contribution to solving problems involved in common prayer by making a distinction between "confessional" and "inter-confessional" prayers. This differentiation has enabled the participants who find it impossible to take part for this or that reason in "ecumenical" prayers during WCC meetings to choose a divine service peculiar to their own church tradition.
How do your explain the fact that inter-church cooperation today, such as various ecumenical forums, tend to put emphasis mainly on socio-political issues, while increasingly putting doctrinal issues to the background?
I believe there are at least four reasons for it. First, the WCC was founded in the post-war period when the priority was given to international peacemaking. Then the threat of Nazism, fascism and communism was replaced by the threat atomic and nuclear weapons, the cold war drama, apartheid, racism and poverty in Asia and Africa and finally the globalization. In each period the Church with the help of the WCC sought to make a positive contribution to the strengthening of peace and relieving the suffering of people in various parts of the world. The aim was to weaken and destroy the anti-Christian ideologies that prevailed at that time.
Secondly, the WCC itself is a peculiar alloy of two differently orientated movements which emerged in the early 20th century, namely, the Faith and Order and the Life and Work. Their merger was never organic enough because the latter did not attach any special significance to theology, while raising the greatest interest among non-church circles and donors.
Thirdly, there is a growing disappointment with the theological discussions which have proved little effective.
Finally, it should be admitted that in the present Faith and Order, just as in the WCC as a whole, there are no theologians capable of making a significant breakthrough in the dialogue.
What is "canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church" in your view and why the Moscow Patriarchate is inclined recently to identify its flock with all the Russians living in Russia, while denying the same right to other religions? Does your Church reject, like the Muslims and the Jews, the fundamental Christian principle of personal conversion?
The principle of canonical territory has a very long history. Already St. Paul wrote, "So have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Rom. 15:20). What stood behind it was not the commonplace desire "to take the bread out of somebody's mouth,” the more so that the apostle himself preferred to live by his own hands. St. Paul knew from his own pastoral experience how easy the division between "those of Caphas" and "those of Apollos" penetrated the church milieu. He also knew how important it was for successful preaching to take into account local ethnic and cultural peculiarities. Thus, a deliberate refusal to preach the gospel where this preaching was already heard is not only a demand of Christian ethics but also a necessary condition for effective preaching.
In the period immediately after the apostolic age when the number of Christians increased, this principle was enshrined in the canonical compendium know as "Apostolic Canons.” It reads in particular, "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent. Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him" (Canons 34, 35).
The canonical tradition of the early undivided Church formulated the very important principle: one city, one bishop, that is, in one city, or speaking more broadly, in one place there is one Church. There cannot be several local Churches in one place. Finally, it is nonsense from the point of view of the tradition of Early Undivided Church. We do not believe that the tragic division of the Church that followed and the emergence of the so-called confessions can, on the ontological level, eliminate this principle tracing back to the early Christian time. That is why Russia, where the word of God was preached by the Orthodox Church and where she existed from the very beginning as a Local Church, that is the Church of this place, is considered to be the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. Protestant religious organizations are free to accept or reject this reality as much as they recognize the canonical norm of the Undivided Church. But nobody has the right to demand that we refuse what is the most important part of the church Tradition.
Since the Baptism of Russia, Russian Orthodox missionaries became enlightening pioneers who played a key role in the Christianization of the country and the development of the national identity of the people to whom they brought the word of God. All this led to the development of a unique Orthodox culture that drank in the best from previous centuries and became the most important wealth of many peoples in Russia.
It was on the Russian Orthodox Church that responsibility for the preaching of the Gospel, pastoral work, religious education and enlightenment of all those who lived in this land fell. This Church in her canonical territory represents the fullness of the Universal Church of Christ. Our Church feels this great responsibility for all her members, that is, for those who received from us the Sacrament of Baptism, which, we believe, makes a person member of the Church. The peoples of Russia whose cultural heritage is Orthodox expect to hear the word of the gospel precisely from the Russian Orthodox Church and see precisely in her their spiritual guide. There is no notorious "identification" made by the Russian Church between all the Russians and her flock. Statistical polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of people in our country associate themselves in this or that degree with Orthodoxy. This is their own free choice. Of course, one's belonging to a Church by Baptism does not annul the need for one to be churched and to reflect individually on one's place in the church community. The active involvement of believers in church life is one of the main tasks of our pastoral work today.
Therefore, when the Russian Orthodox Church speaks about her canonical territory, it means also that she is aware of her responsibility for the spiritual fate of our people who are hairs of a millennium-long Christian culture that has given to the world hosts of martyrs and other saints. The service that the Russian Orthodox Church has fulfilled for many centuries in our country is unique and its role cannot be replaced for the same reason as history cannot be changed.
What do you think of the chances for cooperation between the Lutheran and the Orthodox Churches in Russia in social area and in religious education? Why can't we cooperate in the field of joint evangelization of children and youth?
The Orthodox and the Lutherans have a very rich history of relations which began as far back as the 16th century at the height of the Reformation in Europe. This history has always been that of mutual respect, understanding and tolerance. It can be stated with confidence that in our time too it is with the Lutherans out of all the Protestant denominations that our Church has the most constructive relations.
Much has been already said about our ties with the Lutheran Churches in Germany and Finland. Certainly, we should use the experience of this cooperation in Russia as well, the more so that we have very good relations with the Russian Lutherans. Social work, religious education, the Christian social thought appears to be the priority field for our interaction. Properly speaking, it is this work that will become our common contribution to the evangelization of all Russia, including children and youth.
Does the Orthodox Church recognize that the Anglicans and Scandinavian Lutherans have the apostolic concession - there is conflicting data on the question in Orthodox publications?
Orthodox Churches have discussed the question of the Anglican priesthood more than once. In the first half of the 20th century some of them, for instance the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Romania, recognized that the Anglican clergy had preserved the apostolic succession. The Conference of the Head and Representatives of Local Orthodox Churches held in 1948 in Moscow adopted a resolution "On the Anglican Hierarchy,” which reads in particular: "The question of recognizing the validity of the Anglican hierarchy may be considered only in connection with the question of unity in faith and confession with the Orthodox Church and if there is an authoritative act of the Anglican Church about it coming from a council, or a congress of the Anglican clergy with its further approval by the Head of the Anglican Church. In this connection we express the wish that the Anglican Church change its teaching dogmatically, canonically and ecclesiastically and especially its authentic understanding of the Holy Sacraments and even more specifically - the Sacrament of Consecration. We resolve that the Orthodox Church may recognize the grace-giving nature of today's Anglican hierarchy if the formally expressed unity in faith and confession would be preliminarily established between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church. Once this desired unity is established, the recognition of the validity of Anglican consecrations may be implemented on the principle of koinonia by a conciliar decision of the whole Holy Orthodox Church as alone authoritative for us.”
The Orthodox Church followed the same principles in respect to the Scandinavian Lutherans. The decisive condition on which Orthodoxy may recognize the grace-giving nature and validity of the Sacrament of Priesthood is not only the formal succession from the apostles (without which any recognition is surely out of the question), but also one faith in this Sacrament and the same canonical principles with regard to priesthood and hierarchy. Meanwhile, nowadays many Anglican and Lutheran Churches of the Scandinavian Region practice the ordination of and by women. Attempts have also been made to revise Christian ethical norms when open homosexuals are allowed to ministry and their relations are blessed. In connection with these developments, which are absolutely incompatible with the Orthodox conception of priesthood, the question of recognizing Anglican and Lutheran ordinations loses its former relevance.
Is there a possibility for reforming the liturgical Old Slavonic language, which the Orthodox Church uses? Can the Church in her liturgical life switch to the modern Russian language? If no, why Old Slavonic is so essential?
First of all I would like to specify: the language the Russian Orthodox Church uses in her liturgical practice today cannot be called Old Slavonic in a strict philological sense. The Old Slavonic language is the language in which our forefathers spoke in old Russia. The liturgical language used today is Church Slavonic, which has seriously evolved since old Russia adopted Christianity. I would like to note that the conversational and liturgical forms of the Slavonic language differed notably already in Old Russia. The liturgical language was filled with theological and moral notions, which were unknown till the adoption of Christianity and were not used therefore in spoken language. Many grammar constructions were borrowed from the Greek language. That is why from the very beginning the Church Slavonic language had certain conceptual and grammatical autonomy from the spoken language.
On the whole I think it is wrong to speak about a reform in the liturgical language. It is wrong because any reform is revolutionary in character. And a revolution always divides people into its supporter and opponents. The use of any language during a divine service does not concern dogmatics and should not therefore become a cause of any division in the Church. The history of the church reforms in the 17th century showed us what tragic consequences this may result in.
It is quite another matter when we speak about intensifying the work to develop the Church Slavonic language that has never stopped in the Church. I mean the adaptation of particular words and grammar constructions to the modern literary language. For example, let us take up the phrase from Psalm 90: "my sin is ever (vynu - Slavonic) before me.” Now even if a person knows the meaning of Slavonic vynu corresponding to the Russian "ever", he would voluntary or involuntary associate it with the verb vynut (which in English means 'take out'). In such cases I suppose substitution is possible. However, it should not be done with respect to popular prayers known to most of us. The matter is much easier with the use of the literary language for reading Holy Scriptures in churches. After all, an overwhelming majority of people read the Bible in Russian, not in Church Slavonic.
From my point of view, today we voluntary or involuntary substitute another, more serious problem for the problem of Church Slavonic at divine services. I would call it a misunderstanding of the language of Christianity. Indeed, such words as "love" and "humility", to which we are accustomed and which are perfectly clear linguistically, have quite a different meaning in Christian understanding from what they mean in the secular world. That is why it is so essential to intensify catechetical work among the faithful.
Das Sakrament der Eucharistie in der Orthodoxen Kirche
Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev
Die heilige Eucharistie ist »das Sakrament der Sakramente« der orthodoxen Kirche. Sie ist das Herzstück der Kirche, ihre Grundlage, ihr Fundament, ohne das die Existenz der Kirche undenkbar ist.
Das Sakrament der Eucharistie oder das hlg. Abendmahl wurde von Christus selbst bei seinem letzten Abendmahl eingesetzt, als er Brot und Wein in seinen Leib und sein Blut verwandelte. Er ließ seine Jünger daran teilhaben und forderte sie auf, dieses Sakrament in Zukunft zu seinem Gedächtnis zu feiern. Auch nach seinem Kreuzestod und seiner Auferstehung versammelten sich die Jünger am ersten Tag der Woche - am so genannten »Fest der Sonne«, dem Tag der Auferstehung Christi -zum »Brotbrechen«.
Ursprünglich war die Eucharistie ein Mahl, das durch Lesen der Schrift und Singen von Psalmen, durch Predigt und Gebet begleitet wurde. Manchmal dauerte es die ganze Nacht. Parallel zum Wachstum der christlichen Gemeinden wandelte sich allmählich die Eucharistie von einem Abend-Mahl in einen Gottesdienst. In der modernen Praxis der orthodoxen Kirche wird die Eucharistie täglich, mit Ausnahme der Wochentage in der großen Fastenzeit -der Passionszeit - gefeiert.
In der christlichen Kirche des Ostens wurde jede eucha-ristische Gottesdienstordnung in der Regel mit dem Namen des einen oder anderen Apostels oder Heiligen verbunden. In der modernen Praxis der orthodoxen Kirche werden zwei eucharistische Gottesdienstordnungen verwendet - die Liturgie des Hlg. Basilius des Großen (330-379 n. C.) und die Liturgie des Hlg. Johannes Chrysostomus (354-107 n. C). Die Liturgie des Hlg. Basilius des Großen wird zehn Mal im Jahr gefeiert, hauptsächlich zu den großen Festen oder am Vorabend dieser Feste. Die Liturgie des Hlg. Johannes Chrysosto-mus wird an allen Tagen des Jahres, mit Ausnahme der Wochentage der großen Fastenzeit, gefeiert. Mittwochs und freitags während der großen Fastenzeit wird die Liturgie der vorgeweihten Gaben - eine nicht-eucharisti-sche Liturgie - gefeiert. Sie trägt den Namen des Hlg. Gre-gorios Dialogos, des römischen Papstes Gregor des Großen.
Die eucharistische Darbringung ist nach ihrem Sinn ein Opfer, in dem Christus selbst »der Darbringende und der Dargebrachte, der Empfangende und der Austeilende« ist - so das Gebet des Priesters während des Cherubim-Hymnus. Christus selbst ist der alleinige Vollzieher der Eucharistie. Er ist unsichtbar in der Kirche anwesend und wirkt durch den Priester.
Für die orthodoxen Christen ist die Eucharistie keine einfache symbolische Handlung, die als Erinnerung an das letzte Abendmahl vollzogen wird. Sie ist das Abendmahl selbst, das täglich von Christus wieder gefeiert und seit der Osternacht, in der Christus mit seinen Jüngern am Tisch saß, ununterbrochen in der Kirche fortgeführt wird. »Des geheimnisvollen Gastmahls mache mich heute teilhaftig, Sohn Gottes«, spricht der Kommunizierende beim Empfang der heiligen Gaben. Bei jeder Liturgie wird nicht nur das Abendmahl, sondern auch das Opfer Christi auf Golgatha neu dargebracht: »Der König der Könige und der Herr der Herren wird geschlachtet und den Gläubigen als Speise dargeboten« - so in der Liturgie des Karsamstags.
Die orthodoxe Kirche glaubt fest daran, dass sich in der Eucharistie Brot und Wein in den wirklichen Leib und in das wahre Blut Christi verwandeln und keine rein symbolische Darstellung des Leibes und Blutes sind. Ein solches Verständnis der Eucharistie war für die christliche Kirche seit den Zeiten der Apostel charakteristisch. Das bezeugt auch der Hlg. Josephus Flavius (2. Jahrhundert), der sagte: »Diese Speise ist der Leib und das Blut dieses fleischgewordenen Jesus.« Der Hlg. Ignatius von Antiochien (2. Jahrhundert) bekräftigte auch, dass »die Eucharistie der Leib unseres Heilandes Jesu Christi ist, der für unsere Sünden gelitten hat«. Jesus selbst sagt: »Denn mein Fleisch ist die wahre Speise, und mein Blut ist der wahre Trank. Wer mein Fleisch isst und mein Blut trinkt, der bleibt in mir, und ich in ihm« (Johannes 6,55-56).
In der Eucharistie vollzieht sich nach orthodoxem Glauben die Vereinigung des Gläubigen mit Christus nicht symbolisch und bildlich, sondern wirklich, real und vollständig. So wie Christus Brot und Wein durchdringt und sie mit seiner Göttlichkeit erfüllt, so geht er auch in den Menschen ein und erfüllt seinen Leib und seine Seele mit seiner lebensschaffenden Präsenz und göttlichen Energie. In der Eucharistie werden wir, nach dem Ausdruck der heiligen Väter, »des gleichen Fleisches« mit Christus. Er geht in uns ein wie in den Schoß der Jungfrau Maria.
Der ehrwürdige Simeon, der Neue Theologe (11. Jahrhundert), schreibt darüber, dass Christus, indem er sich mit uns vereinigt, alle Glieder unseres Körpers göttlich macht: »Du bist uns dem Fleisch nach verwandt, und wir sind dir verwandt nach deiner Göttlichkeit. Du verbleibst mit uns jetzt und immerdar, du nimmst in jedem deine Wohnung, und du wohnst in allen. Jeder von uns einzeln ist mit dir, o Heiland, ganz mit dem Ganzen, und du bleibst in jedem Einzelnen. So werden alle Glieder von jedem von uns zugleich Glieder Christi und wir gemeinsam werden zu Gott, da wir alle zusammen in Gott sind.«
In den Worten des Hlg. Simeon kann man die Verbindung von Eucharistie und Vergöttlichung nachvollziehen, die das Ziel des christlichen Lebens ist. Zugleich wird der spürbare, leibliche Charakter der Vereinigung mit Christus betont: Unser Fleisch erhält in der Eucharistie so etwas wie einen »Sauerteig der Unverweslichkeit« und wird vergöttlicht, und wenn es stirbt und verwest, wird dieser Sauerteig zum Unterpfand der zukünftigen Auferstehung.
Wegen dieses besonderen Charakters der Eucharistie schenkt die Orthodoxe Kirche diesem Sakrament eine besondere, mit nichts zu vergleichende Bedeutung in Bezug auf die Erlösung des Menschen. Ohne Eucharistie gibt es weder eine Erlösung noch eine Vergöttlichung, weder wahres Leben noch die Auferstehung und ewiges Leben. »Wenn ihr nicht das Fleisch des Menschensohnes esst und sein Blut trinkt, so habt ihr kein Leben in euch. Wer mein Fleisch isst und mein Blut trinkt, der hat das ewige Leben und ich werde ihn auferwecken am jüngsten Tage« (Johannes 6,53-54). Diese Worte Christi werden in der orthodoxen Kirche wörtlich und nicht symbolisch verstanden.
Aus diesem Grund wird den Gläubigen empfohlen, regelmäßig das Sakrament der Eucharistie zu empfangen. In der modernen Praxis der orthodoxen Kirche werden die Gläubigen aufgerufen, jeden Sonntag die heiligen Gaben zu empfangen. Manche Gläubige gehen nur einmal im Monat oder sogar nur einmal im Jahr zum hlg. Abendmahl. So wurde es zum Beispiel in Russland vor der Revolution 1917 praktiziert. Allerdings kehrte die Mehrheit der Gläubigen in der Zeit der Verfolgungen zum häufigeren Empfang des heiligen Abendmahls zurück.
Die Frage, wie oft man die heiligen Gaben empfangen soll, wurde in Russland besonders intensiv am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, während der Vorbereitung des Lan deskonzils der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche von 1917-1918 diskutiert. Es wurde empfohlen, zur urchristlichen Praxis zurückzukehren und das Abendmahl jeden Sonntag zu empfangen. Zwar sei der Mensch dieses großen Sakramentes nie würdig, weil alle Menschen Sünder sind. Aber die Eucharistie sei dazu eingesetzt worden, damit die Menschen, indem sie die heiligen Gaben empfangen und sich mit Christus vereinigen, immer reiner und Gott würdiger werden.
Die orthodoxe Kirche betont zwar, dass kein Mensch der Eucharistie wahrhaftig würdig sein kann. Zugleich erinnert sie den Gläubigen aber daran, dass jeder, der das Sakrament empfängt, zu einer Begegnung mit Christus vorbereitet sein muss. Die Vorbereitung auf das hlg. Abendmahl darf sich nicht auf das Lesen einer bestimmten Zahl von Gebeten und auf die Enthaltung vom Ge-nuss bestimmter Speisen beschränken. In erster Linie besteht die Vorbereitung auf den Empfang der heiligen Gaben in der Läuterung des Gewissens, im Ablegen der Feindseligkeit gegen den Nächsten und der Verärgerung über jemanden sowie in der Versöhnung mit allen Menschen: »Wenn du deine Gabe auf dem Altar opferst und dort kommt dir in den Sinn, dass dein Bruder etwas gegen dich hat, so lass dort vor dem Altar deine Gabe und geh hin und versöhne dich zuerst mit deinem Bruder, und dann komm und opfere deine Gabe« (Matthäus 5,23-24). Ein Hindernis für die Teilnahme an der Eucharistie stellen die von einem Menschen begangenen schweren Sün den dar. Diese müssen unbedingt im Sakrament der Buße gebeichtet werden.
In der orthodoxen Kirche ist es üblich, die Gaben nüchtern zu empfangen, weil der menschliche Körper durch das Fasten vorgereinigt werden soll. Der Patriarch von Konstantinopel, der Hlg. Gennadij, sagte einmal: »Wer den Kaiser in sein Haus einlädt, wird zuerst sein Haus reinigen; so sollst auch du, wenn du Gott in dein fleischliches Haus aufnehmen möchtest, zuerst deinen Körper durch Fasten heiligen«. Das hlg. Abendmahl auf nüchternen Magen zu empfangen ist eine alte Tradition. Sie geht auf die Zeit zurück, als die Liturgie aufhörte, Fortsetzung der Agape - des Liebesmahles - zu sein und sich in einen feierlichen Gottesdienst verwandelte, der in den Morgenstunden gefeiert wurde.
Alle Vorschriften bezüglich der Vorbereitung auf die Eucharistie sind darauf gerichtet, dass der das Sakrament empfangende Mensch sich seiner Sündhaftigkeit bewusst wird und mit dem Gefühl der innigen Buße an den Kelch herantritt. Im Gebet vor dem hlg. Abendmahl wiederholt der Priester mit dem ganzen Volk die Worte des Apostels Paulus, und jeder bezeichnet sich als »den ersten der Sünder«: »Herr, ich glaube und bekenne, dass du in Wahrheit der Christus, der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes bist, der in die Welt gekommen ist, um die Sünder selig zu machen, unter denen ich der erste bin.« Allein das Bewusstsein der eigenen Unwürdigkeit macht einen Menschen würdig, an der Eucharistie teilzunehmen.
Die Zerknirschung über die eigene Sündhaftigkeit hindert den Christen nicht, die Eucharistie als Fest und Freude zu empfinden. Ihrer Natur nach ist die Eucharistie eine Danksagung, ihre Hauptstimmung daher der Lobpreis Gottes. Es ist kein Zufall, dass an den Wochentagen der großen Fastenzeit nicht die ganze Liturgie gefeiert wird: Der traurigen Stimmung dieser Tage entspricht nicht der jauchzende Charakter der eucharistischen Gebete.
Darin besteht das Paradoxon und das Geheimnis der Eucharistie: Man soll sich ihr in Bußgesinnung und zugleich mit Freude nähern - reumütig wegen des Bewusst-seins der eigenen Unwürdigkeit und mit Freude, weil der Herr den Menschen in der Eucharistie reinigt, heiligt und vergöttlicht, ihn würdig macht trotz seiner Unwürdigkeit. In der Eucharistie wird nicht nur Brot und Wein in Leib und Blut Christi verwandelt, sondern auch der Kommunizierende selbst wird aus einem alten in einen neuen Menschen verwandelt; er wird befreit von der Last der Sünde und erleuchtet durch das göttliche Licht.
Aus dem Buch: Hinhören und hinsehen. Beziehungen zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland. Leipzig–Moskau, 2003.